On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:11:57 +0900 (IRKST) Fedor Zuev <email@example.com> wrote: > >> Exactly, I still not see any non-stupid demonstration of the > >> contrary. I prefer not to state anything else. > > >My $HOME is on an encrypted filesystem. If I have any GFDL > >documents on that filesystem, I'm in violation of the license. > > It is not a violation of license to _have_ GFDL documents > anywhere. I already discuss this example in all details. Could you point me to a URL of such a discussion? I'm afraid I must have missed it. > >If I'm on a shared, multi-user system, I must leave any directories a > >GFDL document is in as world-readable; to restrict permissions would be > >to use a technical measure to restrict the further reading of the > >document. > > Heh. And, according to the same logic, you should not lock > the door of your home, because someone may want to copy document > from your desktop. Get real! > > GFDL says about _further_ distribution of already received > work, not about initial copying you may allow or not allow to > someone. But, ever regardless of particular terms of license it is > clear from the law, that you can have any obligations only to the > _legitimate_ recipient of a copy of work. If someone get a copy by > the means, which is illegal itself, without your will, consent and > ever awareness, this can't create for you any obligations to him. "of the copies you *make or distribute*" Emphasis mine. The language is pretty clear.
Description: PGP signature